User talk:Atsme/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Gee,

Why didn't I add the category? Perhaps because I don't know anything about horses and best to leave it to someone who does? But I guess the obvious is something you can't grasp. Postcard Cathy (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey there

Golf in the Big Sky?

ahhh!

Here's an idea If it gets too hot down in Texas... (taken when I was over in the Bozeman area waiting to go to a Bernie Sanders/Rob Quist rally... heh... ) By the way, how am I doing with the camera and the editing software? Montanabw^(talk) 20:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

You done good!! What a pretty shot, Montanabw. With the heat the way it is down here, don't be surprised if a short blonde shows up at your door packing camera gear. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Call ahead just in case we're out of town... like getting better photos of these: Montanabw^(talk) 00:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

New horse cutting article

Howdy Atsme! I came across a new article last week, created May 4, Fern Sawyer, that was in the wrong Rodeo category. It had few categories and no wikiprojects, so I fixed that. The subject is said to be a rodeo champion and a cutting horse champion. In the Rodeo Hall of Fame of the National Cowboy and Western Heritage Museum and the National Cowgirl Hall of Fame (which only mentions cutting). So, I added the Cutting (sport) category. And the equine wikiproject. And moved it from the Rodeo Peformers category (non-diffusing) to the Rodeo Performers (other) category. But really I can't find any rodeo events that she participates in. Do you kind of oversee the cutting articles? Just giving you a heads-up on the article in case. Thanks in advance. dawnleelynn^(talk) 15:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Howdy back, Dawn! I just made a few tweaks at the Sawyer biography to correct the "cutting champion" misinformation. To begin, the NCHA wasn't formed until 1946, so she couldn't possibly have won the NCHA National Championships. What she actually won was the "cutting exhibition" at the 1945 Fort Worth Stock Show and Rodeo, and was the only women competing in the event at that time. In 1985, she was inducted into the NCHA Members Hall of Fame (cutting) as one of its Charter Members. PS: I just created the NCHA Members Hall of Fame. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I knew I was doing the right thing in notifying you! And what a coincidence that you had recently created that hall of fame article. It wasn't chance that I came upon the article. I check every now and then for editors adding articles to our non-diffusing categories of Rodeo and Rodeo Performers now that I have cleaned up all the rodeo categories. Don't want all that hard work undone, you know, LOL. And it doesn't hurt for me to learn a little about horse cutting myself. It's nice when we can catch some inaccuracies in other articles and get them corrected. Just shows are hard it is to get 100% accuracy in an article, I guess. Thanks! :) dawnleelynn^(talk) 18:25, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok...here goes...

Just curious... do you think ALL the complaints filed at WP:ANI are worthy of the resulting disruption?
Just curious... do you think WP:Boomerang is productive at ANI?
Just curious... do you think leading in with the Justcurious template helps neutralize the hard questions, and may even defuse a potentially volatile question? ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 17:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Rights changes

Hello, Atsme. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 01:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

EW

Hi Atsme. You have made at least five unambiguous reverts of material at Trump campaign–Russian meeting [1][2][3][4][5]. In most of these cases, someone added material, you removed it, it was re-added, and then you removed it again. Others are just button-pushing reverts. You are way past WP:3RR.

Also, as I mentioned on my talk page, you have made some irrational (often inflammatory) claims[6][7], you tried to game consensus, and you violated Arbcom restrictions about issuing duplicate DS alerts. Please stop doing these things or I will raise them at WP:AE. Thank you. - MrX 16:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

MrX Please stay off my TP if all you're going to do is spread fallacious lies. You are the one reverting - I am correcting noncompliance with NPOV regarding BLPs in an article that is being discussed as a MERGE because it is questionable of whether or not it even belongs in mainspace. At least I'm trying to make it worthy of inclusion while you are doing the opposite by reverting my work. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

My comment was not fallacious or lies; I even included evidence in the form of diffs. No worries though—I don't plan on hanging out here.- MrX 16:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Afc quick accept?

Hi. Can u accept draft:The Mizoram Post, if only to counter systemic bias? Not much of reliable sources on the web in English, but i guess they'd be existing since it's the most circulated newspaper in the Indian state of Mizoram. 223.227.115.75 (talk) 12:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Don't make too much of it

but you will certainly be very interested in this and may wish to leave a short comment there about the upcoming trial for the benefit of those who appear not to want know what they are talking about. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Atsme. You have new messages at Talk:Trump campaign–Russian meeting.
Message added 16:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Heh. Trout?

Hi Atsme, we may be about 85% to a consensus at Talk:Yanardag... I'm waiting to see what JLAN thinks. But I would appreciate your review of the sources discussed and input. I'll send the scientific journal article separately. Montanabw^(talk) 05:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Montanabw I've got an IP harassing me and he/she already replaced the breeding clip. They replaced the current video with one that watermarked, then tagged it as being watermarked. Appears to be a vandal to me. Who can I get to stop the vandalism? I pretty sure it's a sock. ^{Atsme📞📧} 05:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

For images, perhaps User:Sphilbrick. Montanabw^(talk) 06:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Apologies

I took hostility from your comment of Go away, but didn't consider the merit of your comment It is fine just like it is. alone and thought you were possibly "hiding" behind reviewed by admins. Apologies for misunderstanding you. 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 (talk) 16:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I'm responding to you on the file page right now, and ask that you give me a moment to complete what I started there. Please provide the best way to contact you because I believe you can be a valuable asset to the project, and I don't want to lose touch with you. I'll explain it all in the comment at the file page. While we may have had a rocky start, I'm happy to know you, Mr. IP. 😉 ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk page indentation and accessibility

I'll use one of your edits – Special:Diff/791125380 – as an example. I've had few concerns of accessibility with these edits, and hopefully I've fixed any remaining issues on that specific talk page.

See MOS:LISTGAP from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility. Please don't mix asterisks and colons in a discussion. Colons in a talk page conversation – while in wide use – should be avoided for anything but description lists, and never used for indentation.

Please also avoid double line breaks. The rationale behind this is it splits the lists into two ordered lists (two <ul>s), which makes it more difficult to navigate using a screen reader. Part of this is explained at Help:Lists#Spacing between items.

Instead of ===break===, using ---- will insert a thematic break (<hr>). Headings should be used when they are appropriate for navigation, e.g. ===Consensus===.

It's a bit unfortunate how much of the information is scattered over multiple pages (both in the "Manual of Style" and "Help" domains), so I can't give you all the information.

Special:Diff/791268788 had no lists for navigation. <br> has few legitimate uses, and this was not unfortunately one of them. The appropriate fix was to remove the preceding whitespace before asterisks, so now it reads properly in screen readers as "list, 3 items, list number 1: …".

The short lesson is: Don't rely on visual looks of the output, if you can help with it. And nothing personal, hopefully you learned something!

2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and <mark> is for highlighting text, e.g. a run of text marked for reference purpose due to its relevance in the context. It's why I changed your bolding and underlining to it. (Also <u> is not for underlining, it's to indicate unarticulated text.) 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Contacting anonymous contributors, notifications and editing

Moved from File talk:Clip breeding-foaling-A Celebration of Horses.webmhd.webm

 – 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Your attempt of pinging me did not work "as usual".

Registered users can be notified by other users and by IPs, however, an IP cannot be notified by any templates or links.

— Wikipedia:Notifications

However any message left on an anonymous user's talk should give them a notification of new messages as usual. A non-existent user talk page should not be an issue; you don't need to wait for me to create one for myself before you can leave me a message/contact me.

I hardly read messages delivered to other/previous user talk pages, but keep a watch on my contributions for changes. In any case, you can add {{Talkback}} to another user's talk page to notify them of talk messages elsewhere.

WP:VALIDALT is intentional, I have no desire to edit as a registered user. This IP-address like many others I've used is dynamic and may change at any time.

I don't participate in WikiProjects intentionally, but I consider to have quite substantial edits and interest in List of TCP and UDP port numbers, a top priority list for WikiProject Networking. 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Invitation to join WikiProject Organized crime

	Hello, Atsme. You are invited to join WikiProject Organized crime, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of Organized crime topics. Please check out the project, and if interested feel free to join by adding your name to the member list. North America1000 21:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Northamerica1000, is this invitation the result of Russian hacking into my server? ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Atsme: Nope. Just notifying some folks on my mailing list, trying to revive the project. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red's new initiative: 1day1woman

		Women in Red is pleased to introduce... A new initiative for worldwide online coverage: 1day1woman
		Create articles on any day of any month Cover women and their works in any field of interest Feel free to add articles in other languages, too Social media hashtag campaign: #1day1woman (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Lame curiosity...

What does EV mean in AfDs?Winged Blades ^Godric 05:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Winged Blades of Godric...the only questions that are lame are the ones you don't ask. As a side...I made a request to one of our great template editors to make the template {{Justcurious}} for me which looks like this Just curious... so please feel free to make use of it as within days of its creation, another editor tried to delete it for not being used. Now to respond to your curiousity - EV is the acronym for encyclopedic value and is actually a term used as criteria for WP:FP. There are probably better arguments for AfD but wouldn't it be nice if we could roll the same arguments used over and over into that one acronym, especially when we're working to reduce what seems like an unsustainable backlog at both NPR and AfD? ^{Atsme📞📧} 9:37 June 28, 2017

August 2017 at Women in Red

		Welcome to Women in Red's August 2017 worldwide online editathons.
		"Indigenous women" "Women in peace" "Canadian women"

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --

A new WiR initiative starting in August

		Introducing... WiR's new initaitve: 1day1woman for worldwide online coverage Facilitated by Women in Red
		Create articles on any day of any month Cover women and their works in any field of interest Feel free to add articles in other languages too (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

1941 Census of Jammu and Kashmir

Hi, I removed the prod tag since the source is in fact accessible despite the lock icon - simply click on the thumbnail. That said, I'm neutral as to whether an article containing exclusively tabular data and based on a primary source is a good idea. Rentier (talk) 10:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Rentier - the indeffed user emailed me right after I prodded that article and explained how to access the document. He said it was based on a similar article: 1901_Census_of_Delhi_District. I don't think WP should be used as a census directory, so I'll send it over to AfD and see what consensus brings. ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Cheer up!!

Maybe this will help. Enjoy! All work and no play leads to all work and no play. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

AfC acceptance

Because I am nothing if not a good TPS when in between meetings, and because I don't want to over run Kudpung's talk, re: your comment here. The rule for AfC is different than NPP. They generally send stuff to main space if there is 50% or more chance it would pass AfD. We send stuff to AfD when its not speedy, its too controversial for PROD, and we believe it fails WP:N or WP:NOT.

I'm a strong advocate for reading N as a whole here and for NOTSPAM to be taken into account more, but because of current standards, and article that might appear to meet GNG and can be fixed has at least 50% chance of passing AfD, which means it needs to be argued there. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni:--Does this look like an article that can even faintly survive an AfD? My experience with the community behaviour and our standards at AfD compelles me to believe otherwise!Winged Blades ^Godric 18:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Godric, I wasn't commenting on any specific article, just that the AfC standard is significantly lower than the NPP standard in my mind. There are plenty of spam articles that I send to AfD that someone could argue the keep side for based on GNG at a first glance. The job of the nominator is to lay out a case based on the sourcing, and if someone doesn't explain why a recycled press release in a business journal is effectively an advertisement the article is likely to be kept. In the article you just showed, there are sources that at first glance might meet GNG, and I can get why an AfC person might send it to main space for NPP to deal with. That's not defending the article itself, just saying that the standard for AfC is lower than our standard at NPP. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Godric and @TonyBallioni:, y'all might want to read this post. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Atsme. I don't necessarily agree with you on the specifics here: I do think that WP:NOT , which, per my new mantra, is equally part of WP:N as GNG is (and is actually above it since it is a policy) is already what you are talking about here. I also think that corporations can have a positive place in a funding scheme, and since the WMF has no direct editorial control I am personally not as worried about that. What I do agree with is that spam is one of the most significant threats to WP that we have, and we need to get serious about fighting it.

The practical solution is to keep pointing out at AfDs that promotion is not allowed on Wikipedia even if GNG is met. This is mainly for borderline cases, and we need to be careful of things such as The Great Twitter A7 of 2007^TM, but there are a lot of borderline cases at AfD where NOT is helpful to cite IMO. From a system standpoint, I think ACTRIAL is the first step in helping combat spam and improving credbility. The important thing to remember is that we are already more credible than in 2007, what we are working towards now is not losing that credibility and actually improving it. Also, Godric, check out WT:NPPAFC if you haven't already. WMF has agreed to it in principle). TonyBallioni (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you stated Tony but we're still playing a numbers game. When a borderline PR article is created, and a firm's editors outnumber us, the article remains - perhaps because we also have a shortage of qualified closers who will close based on the merits of the case, and an overbundance of closers who^{19:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)} still count !votes. We're dealing with "potluck", meaning there's no way to know for certain who we're up against. I agree that ACTRIAL is a great start, but more needs to be done to protect the "integrity" of the encyclopedia. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Simon Cohen - AfD

I get it that you changed your vote to Strong Delete, but something with the way you formatted it seems to have gone wrong. Maybe you could look at it and adjust it? This is the diff: here  — Myk Streja ^(what?) 06:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what you're seeing, Myk_Streja. I formatted the change using <:sup> + the date to indicate when I changed it. What is it you're seeing? ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Never mind. I guess I just need glasses. I couldn't make sense of it at first; now I can. I'm tired. I think I'll go to bed soon. What I saw was the whole section went to superscript, not just your part. <shrug>  — Myk Streja ^(what?) 00:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Important info worth sharing...

See User_talk:MusikAnimal_(WMF)/NPP_analysis - interesting to know how many articles are created by unconfirmed users and the results. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Paid editing

Yes, we know about WikiExperts. Their claims to success are false and are standard marketing hype. We are catching many spammers, but our effort to engage good page patrollers is not as effective as we would like it to be because of the very fact that many paid editors obviously vote against anything we try to do about it. Let's hope ACTRIAL goes forward without a hitch - it would be a very big step in the combat against the use of Wikipedia as a marketing tool.

The counter strip provides a completely false picture - which of course is exactly what some people want. What we need to bear in mind is that of the 1,257 admin only 50 or 60 are truly active; of the 31,307,742 'users' (which really means registered accounts) less than 0.1% have ever made an edit, and of 434 new page reviewers, 90% of the work is being done by about 15 of them.

On the number of AfC reviewers vs New Page Reviewers, only a tiny fraction of new pages arrive through AfC while NPP has to deal with 800 -1,000 pages a day, the vast majority of which are totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia. New Page Review is the only firewall against unwanted new 'articles' and is an essential and official task and part of the MediaWiki core software. In contrast, although some of its operatives do commendable work, AfC is just a community initiative that was created in early 2007 when the Foundation rightly banned IP users from creating articles in mainspace. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm spamming you with thanks

Hopefully the notifications don't annoy you. Your recent edits are just simply to the point where I can't help myself. I'm not sure if Wiki's copyright policy allows me to do so, but this is where I would embed a gif of a resounding standing ovation every time you say exactly what many of us are thinking. Hope to see you more active around some of the articles I'm currently working on...preach on. Hidden Tempo (talk) 03:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

You're not annoying me at all, Hidden Tempo. As you can see by the comments on my TP, I've been properly grilled and well seasoned by WP's best, so thank you for your thanks. ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Documentaries

Still working through them, I've watched two of the documentaries on sturgeons as well as the one on paddlefish with the latter being a new one on me. A little troubling to see them cut the rostrum ends off as it appears inhumane. I know they said it didn't harm them but still doesn't sit well.

I had watched the first half of the American Crayfish segment a couple of months ago after looking for info on the Hammer's Cobalt Blue Crayfish. It had come up in the margin while looking. I had stopped where they were processing crayfish on a conveyor belt...so when I clicked on your link that is the point where it picked up having it in my history. I restarted and recognized it and finished watching it to the end. Having kept crayfish in my native tanks years ago, I enjoyed watching this. They are escape artists and no matter what I seemed to do they would still find a way to get out. The cave crayfish is very interesting.

Jacques Cousteau is something we couldn't see often enough as it was months between his documentaries so I remember this would tide us over in between and came on regularly and had re-runs. I loved it...
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Berean Hunter are you a SCUBA diver? ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Way back when. I haven't been in a long time except snorkeling and free diving.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

So, Berean Hunter, you're a free diver. That reminds me of an acquaintance, Dominique Serafini. He and a guest that was staying with me on-island (he insisted I introduce him to Dominique) went free diving together and I rarely saw either one of them during the day. I don't free dive because it usually takes me 90-110 mins to get the shot(s) I need...if I'm lucky. If you speak French, there's a fr.Wikipedia BLP about Domique - I have no clue what it says. Anyway, he's an interesting character, but very difficult (for me) to understand because of his heavy French accent. Catherine (French Canadian) is much easier to understand, and while we all get along ok, we have epistemological differences...and that's what makes the world go round. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

His completely unsourced French wiki page translated loosely:

Dominique Serafini, born in Paris in 1946, is an underwater diver and a French comic book author.

From 1966 to 1968, Dominique Serafini studied painting at the National School of Fine Arts in Paris.

From 1981, he embarked on four missions on the Calypso. By diving with the Cousteau team, he was able to illustrate on paper some of the adventures of this marine epic.

He is the author and principal draftsman of the Cousteau Adventure series in comics.

...Mais je ne parle pas français.

Thanks for that translation, Berean Hunter. Funny...Dom may have told me that he did comic books and I simply didn't understand what he was saying. 😆 We're actually neighbors so when I'm on-island, he's usually tinkering around in his garage doing whatever it is he does, or he swims out to his Zodiac and goes free diving. He and my "guest" each averaged 4 min per/free dive. I can barely get 30 secs, and I'm not a fan of snorkeling. I'm a SCUBA diver and barely do that anymore. My other neighbor has a lot of Dom & Catherine's art and I must say, it's beautiful. Another of my neighbors was the "grandfather of the internet", Charles Herzfeld. I see from his WP article that he passed away in February this year. The last time I saw him was fall 2015, I believe, and he was in bad health. He was a sweetheart of a guy. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I certainly couldn't do four minutes...maybe a minute and a half. With my sinuses bothering me this summer probably less. I haven't been in a while but have recently discussed with a couple of landowners to get permission for upcoming excursions when the weather cools a little bit. In fact, one of the videos that I saw the other day gave me the idea of using a bathyscope for the shallows, so I'm thinking of making one with two different LED lighting spectrums rigged onto it for day and night use. I have super bright UV LEDs here already but contemplating using actinic blue LEDs for the alternate spectrum. Are you maintaining saltwater/freshwater aquariums? That spectrum of blue makes things pop, yes? I want to carry that with me as a portable device to see what pops.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

A minute and a half!!! That's great!! My aquarium is the Caribbean which is about a 100 ft walk for me when on-island (and I don't have to clean it or feed the fish) 🤣. My time is split between there and a horse ranch in Texas. Aside from the lifelong livestock/ranching/agricultural aspects of my life in the US, I enjoy striper fishing using live bait or downriggers (used to fish for bass, & produced a weekly tv show about water sports which is where I got the alligator gar footage for the PBS special), and I also love birding and landscape photography. I spent quite a bit of time in the Andes and in the southernmost range of Patagonia. Would love to go back, and have every intention of doing so. I also love Alaska - have friends there, & will prolly go back next summer for better grizzly Picts than what I captured last trip. I also love the idea of going into the streams in the northeast to observe the beautifully colored darters and to observe freshwater clams while they're using their lures ... critter behavior u/w is amazing which helps explain the widespread use aquariums as a hobby. I actually have some footage of clams using their lures (contracted work for hire footage when I produced the crayfish video and River Invaders special). Really need to get it digitized and uploaded to WP. That may be my next project.

Just curious... what is your plan for needing landowner permission? Will that give you access to some brooks and streams? If you're contemplating the use of LEDs in shallow freshwater streams, it's all going to depend on the luminous flux (1000 to 4000 lumens?) that lights the scene, as well as the ambient light, clarity of the water, depth and refraction. LEDs may certainly be a better option than strobes in certain situations. There are just so many variables shooting u/w that trial and error is pretty much the only option. I don't worry too much about light temp as long as its consistent throughout the shoot because those are things that can easily be fixed in the camera and in post. The issue is getting the subject properly lit and having the correct settings on the camera. When shooting macro (which is what I do most), I want the flexibility of positioning the light so I can create the effects I'm after. I remember working with the Agressor Fleet in the late 90s, and was out on the Okeanos Aggressor shooting footage around the pinnacles that jutted up near Cocos Island. A movie crew was moored nearby with an u/w team setting up huge clusters of u/w lights, (looked like racks of stadium lights). In addition to the grips working, there was another team holding a gigantic u/w camera housing (prolly 70mm film cam inside), and a couple of Betacam ops strategically placed nearby. There were cables everywhere running up to the ship. It was probably the crew shooting footage for the Island Of The Sharks IMAX feature. They had quite the u/w studio. I felt like such a small fish in that big sea in so many different ways, including budgets - quite humbling. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Access to streams day and night as well as the ability to make changes like removing trash, excess brush, limbs, excessive leaf litter and sediment. Briar and poison ivy removal from access areas, too. I do a low impact cleaning such as to not disturb wildlife too much. All of that is prep work so I can then go in at night.

I'm having a hard time picturing macro photography underwater because I can't see how you could hold still well enough. I believe you but it is hard to imagine. What I know as macro photography involves focusing rails and prime lenses like (looks at recorded wishlist which is very long and very expensive) the Nikkor 60mm F/2.8 D AF FX Lens (52mm filter size) and the Nikon AF-S Micro Nikkor 105mm 1:2.8G ED FX Lens (62 mm filter size). I don't suppose that you are able to achieve focus stacking underwater? While I have a Nikon wishlist, the idea of taking one below water I quickly deep-sixed after seeing the price tag on the underwater housing a couple of years ago. GoPro may be the way for me to go for underwater photography. I need to revisit John Shaw's book "The Nature Photographer's Complete Guide to Professional Field Techniques" to see the underwater part. That wasn't on my scope at the time.

Since you spend part of your time in TX, would you happen to have a scorpion hunter light? We don't have scorpions here but that type of light factors into my excursions around streams. I'm sometimes surprised by what luminesces; creatures, plants, fungi and some minerals (particularly these).
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

So happy to speak with someone about the u/w environment from a hands-on perspective! I, too, have a hard time picturing u/w macro photography! 🐠 Often, what results isn't a picture at all. Every now and then, a miracle happens. You are absolutely correct about stacking - can't happen - tripods are out of the question, too. To that add current, light refraction, lack of ambient light, back scatter, fire coral, things that go chomp day and night, and few non-moving anything but hard corals. I've uploaded a few macros for use in articles and on my user page, including the yellow papillae flatworm, a chain moray eel, and a blue Pacific feather duster. My other shots are on my Commons user page, including the blue Christmas tree worm, the longlure frogfish with its lure visible, the yellow-face pike blenny, a lizard fish, and a spotted cleaner shrimp. One of these days, I'll upload a few more for use in articles.

As for Texas scorpions, I'm not familiar with a scorpion hunter light (blue light?) - I have no need = although I did have such a need back in the late 60s. It made The Doors music pop!! When Texas scorpions find their way into an air conditioned home, they will come right out and greet you with the entire family in tow! I've only been stung 2ce in my life, knock on wood. Bull nettle has done more harm to me than scorpions or snakes. If you're into luminescence, an incredible natural phenomena takes place on a special reef that fringes the island of Bonaire. Within 2 days after a full moon, it's quite a sight to behold - you'll feel like you're floating in the middle of the galaxy. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of fair use video...

hugs! Montanabw^(talk) 04:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

😂😂😂😂 ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Note of explanation

Hi, I hope you don't take offense at the close: all the highlighting was hurting my eyes :-). K.e.coffman (talk) 05:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Not at all, K.e.coffman - I didn't begin with the highlighting, it came later because it appeared editors weren't getting the point I was trying to make. I read the article again before I called it a night, and was happy with the collaborative efforts. The article is in compliance with NPOV, etc. and it's informative. How could anyone argue with an encyclopedic article that states the facts without offending anyone? ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

By the way, I love the quote on this page: "On Wikipedia, it's important to know when to stop arguing with people, and simply let them be wrong." Where does it come from? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

K.e.coffman is it not hilarious? My friend anonymous wrote it...^{Atsme📞📧} 05:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Atsme. You have new messages at JSH-alive's talk page.
Message added 01:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 01:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

TV

I've dropped JSH-alive a note basically to complain about what a messy stub it is. Such stubs ae not really helpful and the topic is so niche it's unlikely any other editors are going to expand it. One source is not enough. I think the redirect was appropriate, but you don't want to get involved in an edit war over it, and I'm not going to waste any of my time over such a stub. You could probably PROD it for lack of notability and when he dePRODs it as he almost certainly will, send it to AfD and see what happens. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:55, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

A2 is not applicable because it's in English. He's cleaned it up very slightly but I wouldn't waste any more time on that article. However, despite having crated 174 such stubs over the past 12 years, 94 of them have been redirected which means that JSH-alive it's possible is not really making useful contributions (you'd need to check each one first) and is just making more work for everyone else. He really needs to be gently asked to stop doing it, otherwise sooner or later he's going to be faced with a block for disruption - see User talk:Kudpung#*Sigh* for examples of two other users with the same problem. You may also wish to discuss with Softlavender to get some ideas on what to do. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Atsme, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
• Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

• Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
• The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:
  • User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js adds a link to the new pages feed and page curation toolbar to your top toolbar on Wikipedia
  • User:The Earwig/copyvios.js adds a link in your side toolbox that will run the current page through

General project update:

• Following discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Noticeboard has been marked as historical. Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers is currently the most active central discussion forum for the New Page Patrol project. To keep up to date on the most recent discussions you can add it to your watchlist or visit it periodically.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

straight up BLP vio

I don't care about any "in use" tag. You don't get to put BLP violating attacks into a biography of a person just cuz you don't like them, based on sketchy sourcing (cherry picked opinions pieces).Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

You and I are not going to agree on much - that's pretty obvious. I. DID. NOT. VIOLATE. WP:BLP so get over it, and stop acting like a spoiled child who insists on having his way. Next time, leave your biases at login, and refrain from splattering crap all over my TP. This is my happy place and I've grown weary of your PAs. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

What's the problem? I happen to think that the "in use" and "under construction" tags should be treated as warnings that an article doesn't belong in article space. I know them primarily as devices to avoid A7 speedy deletion of spam. Are they also being used for BLP violations? What article is the question about? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Rachel Maddow: [8], [9].Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, nowhere on the template does it describe that the In use tags should be used in the manner you described. Those who are unable to see what constitutes a conspiracy theorist would be better served to refresh their memories and read WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:BLP. If you truly believe the competition is a RS to award a contentious label on a competitive pundit, well...😂😂😂😂...ok - go ahead. I disagree because it's not ok to describe one pundit as a conspiracy theorist when citing the biased opinions of a competitive RS...and that includes all their sister sources. Both pundits have been called conspiracy theorists - the issue arises over what one considers a RS. Just call it what the hell it is, and stop the noncompliance. Both require WP:V, and considering neither have an ounce of substantiated evidence to support either of their theories, well, neither belong in WP. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

^{To clarify, Rachel Maddow is the other pundit. Atsme📞📧 00:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)}

I will explain. I know that isn't what the documentation for those templates says. What I mean is that, in practice, the in-use and under-construction templates are often used to protect placeholder stubs from deletion, when the stubs, in their present state, don't make the required credible claim of .significance. I have no idea what is going on with the BLP dispute and haven't researched it. What I do mean is that those templates, in practice, typically are used by lazy authors who want to create an article in article space and haven't yet done the work, and the article doesn't belong in article space in its current state. Some editors and administrators disagree with me. I would like to speedy the articles with those tags. I don't have a clue what the issue is about the pundits. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Atsme - I have researched the issue now. It was my opinion that the in-use and under-construction templates are more often misused than used properly. I stand by that view. In this case, the template was used to protect a controversial edit from being reverted. I don't have an opinion on whether it was a BLP violation, but the template was being used to attempt to protect a controversial edit. I am not commenting on the merits of the edit, only that it is not appropriate to make a controversial edit and then slap the in-use template on it to protect it. And it is apparent from the edit summary used by User:Atsme in restoring the edit and rebuking User:Volunteer Marek that it was being used to preserve a controversial edit, at least temporarily. The area is subject to American politics discretionary sanctions, and maybe this illustrates why the discretionary sanctions are a good idea. I can't comment on the merits of the edit itself, but the use of the template does appear to me to have been gaming the system. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Could you contribute when you have time?

Hi, Atsme - hope you're having a great weekend. Just wanted to let you know that I added a bit of material to Donald Trump-Russia dossier, in regards to the criticism weathered by BuzzFeed for publishing damaging material about someone without being able to verify that material. I think you may be a bit more versed on this topic than myself, and noticed your discussion regarding Fusion GPS in the Trump-Veslenitskaya(sp?) article, so thought you may have an input and would like to add to or tweak my additions. And if not, of course that's fine too as I see you're still fairly busy with other discussions. Anyway, I thought I'd let you know. Thanks! Hidden Tempo (talk) 22:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Hidden Tempo and Atsme. I added some content on Trump dossier article too. I think that Hidden Tempo's contributions are good.

Atsme - I saw the content that you added on Fusi0nGPS. It was removed subsequently. I do not understand why. Your content additions were accurate and well-sourced. I have also made content additions on that same article, and had my sourced material removed repeatedly. There is a discussion on the FusionGPS talk page right now about it. If you are having a nice weekend and don't want to think about wikistuff, I understand of course! Thank you.--FeralOink (talk) 00:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Just curious... Hidden Tempo and FeralOink are you still engaged in editing Donald Trump-Russia dossier and Fusion GPS? I just recently added an SJC update to Fusion GPS with testimony from Browder. I was tag-team reverted and the reason for removing my work was off the charts. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey Atsme, thanks for the ping. I saw a little bit of that and would have jumped in sooner but have been a bit busy with some things lately. I'll try to get in on the discussion at some point, although this whole thing is such a tangled mess, isn't it? Russia and Fusion GPS and the dossier and blackmail and the Ukraine and the Clintons...hopefully Grassley can get this investigation going soon so we can get to the bottom of all this and sort it out. Hidden Tempo (talk) 05:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Guys, can you please stop WP:CANVASSING each other? And of course the irony is that you have the chutzpah to accuse others of "tag-teaming" when you're busy trying to organize a little tag-team right here yourself. Tsk tsk tsk.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not canvassing when they've been editing and have an interest in the articles, but you're damn sure hounding me, and keep showing up where you're not welcome. Bug-off unless you're here to offer an apology. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, Volunteer. You and your non-stop policy links. Why not actually read it before you link it one of these days? From WP:CANVASSING: "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions..." Notifying an editor who is interested in an article that needs improvement (and has contributed to Trump campaign–Russian meeting and Donald Trump dossier) is accepted and encouraged on the project. Now. Since your false accusation constitutes an aspersion (which is a big no-no, which you assuredly already know [10][11]), I think it's appropriate at this time to apologize to the both of us and strike said aspersion. Thanks in advance, bud. Hidden Tempo (talk) 05:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

You forgot the other part: "Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement) ... recruiting editors perceived as having a common viewpoint for a group, similar to a political party, in the expectation that notifying the group of any discussion related to that viewpoint will result in a numerical advantage" Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Trolls are not welcome here. Go away and stop hounding me. ^{Atsme📞📧} 05:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Farting carrots

There's actually a word to describe the audio tic you described here, using the example of "farting carrots": it's Mondegreen. The history of the word is fascinating, and it's one of those words that as soon as you know it, it's so useful you can't believe you got on without it somehow. Adding @EEng and Martinevans123:.

But now you'll have to excuse me, while I kiss this guy. Mathglot (talk) 22:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Picture yourself in a boat on a river / With tangerine trees and marmalade skies

Somebody calls you, you answer quite slowly / A girl with colitis goes by

EEng 22:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

^{Now THAT is beautiful prose, EEng. (my sides ache from laughing) Atsme📞📧 01:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)}

It's poetry, dumbass. EEng 01:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

^{Not when you have to explain it. The girl obviously ate too many carrots. Atsme📞📧 02:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)}

A gay pair of guys put up a parking lot? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

As soon as I saw this, I knew EEng's talkpage had something to do with it. But it seems to me that a carrot, properly inserted, might lessen the risk of farting (or otherwise might become quite the projectile). --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Robert Palmer: Addicted To Love - Might as well face it, you're a dick with a glove. ^{I'm busting at the seams laughing - you may get a thank you card from my tailor.}

I won't dare include the Mondegreens for Louie Louie. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I once got arrested for trying to fart carrots using a daikon.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

At least it wasn't a durian. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I've long since learned it's better to eat the carrots and daikons first and wait 24 hrs., and as Credence Clearwater says - There's a bathroom on the right. But what might be more appropriate is Bob Dylan's song..."The ants are my friends and they're blowin' in the wind." ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

OMG I have been diagnosed with mumpsimus. Does anyone have the anecdote. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

No, but I have the cure which may either prove helpful or add more fodder to this discussion, Shock Brigade Harvester Boris. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Thematic Wikipedias

I have often thought that a place to start (not promotional articles, other perhaps than vanity) would be on sport. Not many people are aware that the vast majority of biographies on the en.Wiki are actually one-liners about football (soccer) players. I believe, but I'm not sure, that some 10% of the 'pedia pages (not text volume) are dedicated to sport in some form or other. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

You referred to an idea about sub-encyclopedias, and implied that this was a way to deal with paid editing. I don't understand. Would paid editors be allowed in some of the sub-encyclopedias, such as the business one? If so, would corporate articles only be in the business encyclopedia, or would there also be a main encyclopedia? In any case, if paid editors were allowed in the business encyclopedia, where would readers turn for neutral information about companies? If corporate articles were also included in the main encyclopedia, what would prevent paid editors from sneaking in? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, if I may respond to your question with the following question...do you really believe ALL of the corporations/businesses in WP now are NPOV? Without doing a Google or WP search, take a guess at where the following information originated, and tell me if, based on the comment as a standalone without any connection to anything, do you think it's NPOV: "The latest dietary guidelines from the U.S. suggest that moderate caffeine intake may not only be safe, but also healthy. Studies from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services show that daily consumption of the amount of caffeine contained in three to five cups of coffee is not only safe, but also appears to reduce the risk of Type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease in adults. Caffeine may even protect against Parkinson's disease, the evidence suggests." ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. It appears that you are saying that you don't want to discuss, and are prepared to abandon NPOV on corporations and business, and maybe on stimulants. But caffeine is good for you, and advertising isn't good for you. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Seriously, are you suggesting that there be only a sub-encyclopedia for business directory listings, which would be company-written, or that there should also be neutral articles in the main encyclopedia? If you have a serious proposal, please let me know what it is. I don't understand, and maybe you haven't explained it fully. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Category-diagram

Robert McClenon, try to think of it as, uhm...💭💭💡...individual volumes comprising a few main topics. Example: Vol 1-Life Sciences, Vol 2-Sports, Vol 3-Business (w/categories like Historic, Corporate, etc.), Vol 4-Politics, Vol 5-Media, Music, Gaming (MMG) or something along that line - see the category diagram and Wikipedia:Featured_topics for more ideas. Let's say we have a volume on Business - why not include a WP disclaimer on the articles that have issues, like Red_Bull for example. It may help reduce the "perceived value" of being included in WP if a disclaimer is attached which in turn may create a reduction in COI/paid editing and indiscriminate additions of non-notable entities/people. We might even consider promotion to FA before the disclaimer will be removed, and by doing that, we'll be encouraging quality articles while discouraging COI/paid editing because few will want to take the time/endure a FA review, not to mention the fact it will assure compliance with NPOV and other PAGs. Keep in mind, these are just thoughts I'm throwing out there.

I still don't understand. The real question that I have about sub-encyclopedias is whether they would have the same policies and guidelines as the main encyclopedia concerning notability, promotional content, and paid editing. If they are subject to the same strict policies on notability and against promotional content and conflict of interest, then they only make a small difference with regard to the nuisance of commercial use. If notability is eased and promotional content and paid editing are permitted, then the main encyclopedia becomes a better product than the sub-encyclopedias. So far, so good. But in that case, will there be neutral articles on notable companies in the main encyclopedia? If so, there will still be a problem of corporate editors trying to sneak advertising into the main encyclopedia. Please explain. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I will add that the areas where I see a problem with bad articles are companies, living persons, and bands. Only the companies (and marginal bands) have the resources, ambition, and greed to be troublesome. So would neutral articles on companies be allowed in the main encyclopedia? If not, we are depriving our readers of neutral coverage of companies because we have conceded that companies should be allowed to buy non-neutral coverage. If so, we still have to exclude non-neutral articles from the main encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Another example: our encyclopedia is being marketed to business entities as evidenced by the following link:

• It adds a level of prestige, authenticity and credibility to your business, brand or persona.
• It provides you with an additional and credible website presence that will depict your business with integrity.

If we don't do something, more editors will start scratching their heads wondering why they're helping others get paid t the work they're doing for free. Kudpung nailed it, and I'm just doing whatever I can to help find solutions to a growing problem, even if it means throwing a little poopoo against the wall to see what sticks.^{Atsme📞📧} 19:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand the thematic Wikipedias, and will explain shortly. I do understand the link, and the WMF should ask legal counsel to take action for violating Wikipedia's trademark and for soliciting to violate Wikipedia's copyleft. Just because someone offers to do something illegal doesn't mean that we should do something illegal. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I would love to start by moving pages about individual episodes of TV shows to a separate Wiki. Not every The Simpsons episode needs to have a stand-alone page on Wikipedia, but the content clearly needs to be somewhere. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Power~enwiki, I just posted a comment on User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#We.27ve_created_a_monster which reminded me of a comment I posted to his TP back on April 23, 2015 about this very topic. There is also an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies). ^{Atsme📞📧} 05:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)